TL;DR

  • Google has made it harder to build custom Android ROMs for Pixel phones by omitting their device trees and driver binaries from the latest AOSP release.

  • The company says this is because it’s shifting its AOSP reference target from Pixel hardware to a virtual device called “Cuttlefish” to be more neutral.

  • While Google insists AOSP isn’t going away, developers must now reverse-engineer changes, making the process for supporting Pixel devices more difficult.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 123 points 1 year ago (7 children)

one less reason to buy a Pixel, well done Google!

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I don't have any actual research, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Pixel itself doesn't really make money at all. One of those "get people hardcore into the Google ecosystem to get their money/data" things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The absolutely criminal dark patterns that they pull on people via Google photos auto backup is insane.

    Just in my own orbit 2 of my friends wives, my parents, and my in-laws all wound up paying Google because they thought they had to or lose all their photos. We helped most of them disconnect the autobackup (that they didn't even know was activated) and move it to offline safely. But that was the most downright evil shit Google has ever done and literally a fire in me for manipulating the elderly and less tech savvy so blatantly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    devil's avocado: this move has saved many people's cherished photos from disappearing by having them auto save. before Google photos I'd run into cases (I used to do home IT support) where people had years of family photos disappear because they didn't back them up properly. Having to communicate what happened was never fun.

    is Google photos perfect? No, but it's a great solution for people who don't want to manage their data.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes, but that shouldn't explicitly opt in, and they shouldn't marry that product to Gmail and Google Drive if they are going to push it to enable by default.

    Again, it's really insidious. They push it so aggressively I had to disable it on my personal device twice, and I can't just not use Google Photos app because it's tied to the camera itself on pixel phones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 103 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    The company says this is because it’s shifting its AOSP reference target from Pixel hardware to a virtual device called “Cuttlefish” to be more neutral.

    This actually probably make sense, but they could still be cool and have pixel drivers be open source in a different repo if that was the only reason.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yeah, just that this has shit to do with the stated reasons. Google hasn't been an open source ally for quite some time now

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Yup, the entire culture of Google has nearly changed. It used to be coder- and innovation-driven, and open-source was a natural thing to support. Make more money by growing the pie, creating markets with new tech.

    Now it seems it's middle managers and MBAs calling the shots, and their strategy is generic business zero-sum mindset - lock down, restrict, extract. They still see the PR value in open-source, but that's it.

    Just becoming 1990s Microsoft or 1980s IBM.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Would be great indeed, but "more neutral" in this case seems to mean vendor agnostic by abstracting the hardware away and have anything run on a closed source google container.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 89 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Now more than ever we need more work on PostmarketOS, Mobian, Gnome Mobile etc...

    Bummer that it's still so hard to find a somewhat modern, affordable phone that is Linux compatible

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Yeah, I'd totally buy a phone running one of those provided it does all the phone things properly: SMS/MMS, reliable calls, all day battery, etc. I don't need fancy apps, I just need a working phone.

    If I can get that, I could probably donate some time porting apps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    I really want to give furios phone a shot. It's apparently close to supporting my carrier.

    That and a sailfish phone. The community one though didn't support my carrier (think it's mainly EU specced only.)

    What I find missing most of the time though is any esim support. Makes me wonder if the hardware one that you can program an esim on works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 62 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Does this mean Graphene is dead? Probably the real reason they would do this is to kill Graphene.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 85 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    The GrapheneOS team is very aware of their dependence on google. They are planning to either find an OEM for their own line of hardware or a brand whose phones support their requirements other than google. That being said, it will complicate work a lot, but for now it would be to early to jump to that conclusion.

    Also, Google couldn't care less if <1% of buyers flash a custom ROM / OS on their phone, this is about tying the android ecosystem closer to google in general. Most other big phone manufacturers know this and are trying to come up with their own solution, like Huawei had to because of the ban when the orange man has been president the first time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    or a brand whose phones support their requirements other than google.

    Wasn't Graphene's "selling point" for long being that nothing but Pixels can match their reqs? I don't see why any current band would want to make it easier for them, and I also don't see new brand significantly entering the market.

    Graphene boiled themselves in their own frogpan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is not a selling point but rather a unfortunate but comprehensible circumstance. Nexus and later Pixel phones have not been anything more than reference hardware without significant sales until the Pixel 6. Google has been a software company that has greatly benefited by android being an "open" platform you could contribute to and use their services on.

    The App / Cloud ecosystem has gained a lot of competitors, so Google is doing their best to reverse this course of action by pulling more and more functionality out of AOSP into Play services and now into Cuttlefish. We can only wait and see how other phone manufacturers react to this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    It certainly feels like it is judging by the general moodshifts occuring. But I'm a moron, what alternative exists for a secure phone of comparable functionality? It feels like ditching phones is the only option to some extent(for me). If stupid, isn't the phone the most vulnerable weakpoint open to attack?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    deleted by creator

  • source
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That was bound to happen at some point. Buying a Google device to then "degoogle" it never sit quite right with me.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This is not good, this is why I don't like permissive licenses.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago

    Sundar Pichai strikes again!

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    Long time coming, Play Integrity (or whatever's called nowadays) restrictions have effectively killed any alternative distributions.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    I swear to god how many time it has to pass until developers realize open source is just a facade only Free Software licences are free as in freedom

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Sorry how would have a GPL`d aosp helped here? Google would and could still have not published their drivers for the pixel. You'd need pixel drivers licenced by someone different from google to make them publish their changes to the drivers

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I am running GOS on a Pixel 7, which means I've had this device for ~2.5 years at this point, and back when I transitioned to this setup I was aware they were talking about being beholden to Pixels due to the hardware security module not being available on other devices.

    It has been a known issue. I understand it is a very difficult and costly undertaking to develop new hardware and new entrants would be competing against the big guys for fab space, manufacturing and assembly etc.

    We need some kind of nonprofit or independently financed group to advance this cause. Could it be FUTO, Framework, or some other company/organization like this?

    There would be market incentive to solve these problems - There has got to be a lot of demand for a neutral hardware platform that meets the hardware security module and other requirements for bootloader security, custom ROMs, etc.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    huh, look at that. the thing people were warned about when buying pixel phones happened.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This fucking sucks. Cyberpunk dystopia

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 13 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Oneplus gang, how we feelin?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    as a panicked graphene enjoyer, does oneplus measure up as a decent alternative or no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So I installed LineageOS recently. Now that I've transferred my passwords and account info I'm quite happy. What will happen from here? Will some apps stop working? If not, is there a problem with just continuing to use the phone as is until I need a new phone (security, eg)?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So I bought a pixel device (an old one) for nothing ?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If Pine64 can spec out a reasonably decent prototype of a phone and Purism can sell theirs for 2 grand (not worth it), then somebody else can legit come out with something just the same. Pine64 project and Purism cannot be the only communities that can somehow come out with these kinds of tech. Better yet, more people should be jumping to help out these guys to be free from Google and Apple dominance.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›